Ryan wrote:One that strives for religious purpose of expansion, conquest and seizing of power.

How do we combat it? How do we nibble it away?

To make the long answer short : you don't reason a fool, you prevent it to touch you (big stick, fence, ...), or you prevent it to become a fool.

I'm really not sure that the puppeteers are this religious. They use the religions for their own gains and to have an army of (dumb) loyal soldier. They get something from this. We musn't stop to the soldier, and try to see where the interest lies.

All the rest of the post is my opinion. I'm not right, and if I say something in the affirmative tone, is only because it's easier for me to write like this
In addition, If I say "our nations", I will mainly speak of France, since it's the nation that I know the most. I will generalize, but could be plainly wrong. Don't hesitate to "reprimand me" in this case.

Finally, I'm not sure I speak about the "fighting mindset" but more about the geopolitic which are the roots of this mindest.

If you think my post is "out of subject", just say it and I will try to edit it

IMHO , we must differentiate the war on their territory , and the war on our territory.
-----------
In our nations, the power they have is the power our nations are conceding in the security illusion.
What I want to say is that they are not expanding or conquesting anything. They are only wanted to show they (illusionnary) power (to bring fear)

They bring chaos to us, and what do our nations do:

- some gesticulation and drop our liberty (patriot act, "loi sur le renseignement", "etat d'urgence" (state of emergency). Terrorism is a scapegoat to have a better control of their population (For example, France use the "state of emergency" to assign to their house known ecologist who were against the COP21, for precisely the duration of the COP21.
They forbidden demonstration against COP21 with the excuses of "terrorism risk where multiples person are re-assembled", but in exactly the same time, ask every french man to use public transport instead of their cars... and forgetting the RER bombing of 95 in Paris (you can pack, and have much more efficiency in bombing in a closed environment like a train than in a public space like a road, as Madrid show us )
NSA use the patriot act to spy on their own citizen concerning plenty of thing different than the terrorism).
I'm personally not sure that it will prevent other act of terrorism, nor that it will eradicate the roots of the radicalization.

- do some war in far away country (and by the way, killing much more innocent in these country that the terrorist attack did in our own).

What our nations do NOT (and must do to limit this mindset):
- explicate what are the root of the terrorism : to bring terror. To make think that they can get us everywhere, when they want. And that in a short term we will all get killed. It's obviously not true.They are a minority, and in france, there are much more homeless kill each year by the cold than people killed by a terrorist attack.... (and I never see a "state of emergency" to avoid these humans to be killed... I am an idealist and think that a human life saved ... is still a human life saved, even if it's a homeless who isn't threatened by a jihadist )
All the media saying that it's absolutely horrible, that we are in a war ... are clearly anxiogen and irresponsible (Compare picture of a bombed ukrainian city and Paris to see "what is war".)
--> first things to do is to dedramatize the situation , and help people take the look at the bigger picture. It's not because that your neigbour have one wire our of his pocket that it's a suicide bomber. They are surely only earphone...

Another example : In France, all mall have taken security guard who check bags to see if there nothing suspicious. I could hide an AK-47 on my back that they will see nothing (and of course, they could do nothing, they are not armed, and even if they were, they wouldn't use it because of our laws ).
Really.I've come with my motorcycle vest with the space for the back protection (easily could put a smg instead), and a little pocket on my belt, where there are space for one grenade, and they neither ever ask me anything. (actually I don't have grenade in this pocket but phone, battery, etc... )

It's clearly not helping to have a clear vision of what really happening when all you do is gesticulating and fueling the fear.

- find the cause of the radicalization of theses men. For the 11/9 , they were multiples month in USA. Why the "american way of life" did'nt converrt them back that Americans aren't evil ? How can we achieve this?
In the recent Paris terrorist attack, the perpetrators were french, and stopped following scholarship. Why a french man could be radicalized so easily ? Why there are 14 years french girl who go willingly to syria to be used as sex slave ?

Finding these root cause will force the terrorism to bring foreign perpetrators, with much less cover in the country.

What our nations do our do not, but don't communicate on this (so we have no idea if they are doing a fine job) :
- trying to identify, and neutralize (in the civil term : transform them powerless. Not necessarily killing ) foreign agent and network which organize theses guerrilla operations.

To finish this first part, IMHO our nations tend to act, but not reflect. They will show their muscle and tears, but they don't want to educated their citizen on why they are targeted, and why this or this arguments is a bad argument.
In France, we have a law which say that if you said something which glorify terrorism act etc..., you could be sent to jail. One of the perverse aspect of this sort of law, is that you (any person with more than 2 neuron) cannot counter argument any glorification since they are hidden.
In France we have a saying

Couvrez ce sein que je ne saurais voir.

("Cover up that bosom, which I can't endure to look on").
It conveys the idea that if we aren't happy with a subject , then just hide it will make it disappear.
Of course it's completely false.

It's also avoid to show that our nation aren't so "bright" and that we have also our part of shadow and evil deed.

-------------------

On their territory.
Disclaimer : I am , by no way, an expert on middle east regions, or in muslim current.

It's truly, as you indicate it, a war of conquest. There are territory conquest, but also power conquest on other muslim current.

In addition, they tend to be truly cowards, using human shield (hostage), sex slave, and using power to coerce. They tend to prevent girls to have education or responsibility to make them stay obedient.

In Liban, Hezbollah put his headquarter in residential building, to prevent any sane person with value to the (innocent) human life to dislodge them.

Each of the current, tribes, form and break alliance following their short/middle-term interest.

For example, it's really funny to see Russia saying they will killed ISIS when they associate to the Syria Government, since it's this government which help ISIS grow in the first place!
They use ISIS to create a second front for the rebels, and with this help, they grew..

It's also fun to see how Turkish, who officialy are against ISIS, buy gas and oil from them....

And how US have officially drop help for kurdish as soon as they had access to turkish air base (certainly a secret accord to use the base, since turkish government just want to kill/imprison all remaining Kurdish since "they could be terrorist from the PKK").

I speak specifically about isis, but we could also speak about the palestinian territory, where Hezbollah use terrorism to get political advantage, and so on, and so on.

Religion in these country are a mean of control the population, and get the dumber doing absurd things ("If you kill yourself you could have virgins".... You don't need to kill yourself to go on a date dude ... especially in countries where when a girl is violated in a car, she (and not the perpetrator) is condemned because she was in a car with a stranger (of her family) (UAE are pretty extreme, don't you think ?)).

How can we prevent this on the long term? The region could be stabilized ... But it wasn't stabilized from most of the 5000 years before today. And to work it must come from the internals, and not from the external, as US show us. (At least they tried, even if we could certainly point multiple not so great thing they did in this war... as for anything/anyone doing actually something).
So this mean that all the population must be educated, and exactly in the same moment, changing all the mentality of the population to avoid repercussion. Following that in 1 or 2 generations they had a sufficiently open and educated population to work in a democracy, and could have enough power to prevent a dictator of using primal instinct to be elected. (Just to help memory of some, some really evil dictator in this region were brought by occidental secret service. Bite in the ass I would say).

We could also make a big flat parking after all ^^. It's all sand, we could get a glass parking ^^.

Sorry for the late reply. To cut this short you see social-economic-political-territorial issues surrounding, even motivating, Islamic terrorism. This is true for most forms of terrorism that are geopolitically funded. However, Islamism is not geopolitics. It is a global-view. I do however agree with you with security countermeasures over-stepping boundaries and convolute the civil environment.

I want to counter one of these myths stated, that Jihadis are religious idiots being used by other humans. This is mostly false in their motivation.
Jihadhis often cite religious and legal framework in what they do by three methods:
- The Ijma - scholar consensus.
- The (Sahih) Hadith.
- The Quran with abrogated and abrogator verses.

This gives it not only a religious funding, it is a legal one. Hence a legal and religious obligation to act in offense and defense of the religion. Jihadism. Being a puppet for religion and legal "Sacred duties" makes sense, sure. But then again - can we stop this? All religious people, are to some degree, puppets for human entities.

The war on their, our territory is also misguided. In Islam you have two divisions of the world: the Dar al-harb and Dar al-Islam. Islamists see the world as Allah's, and thus it is the duty for them to expand the region and borders of their ("Muslim") territory because it is firstly their right to do so in the name of Allah and secondly... wait we don't need a second point. In other words by going against their ideals, you "energize the base."

Here is more information:

Major Stephen Coughlins book, by the way, is excellent. I hope you understand more after seeing this. Tell me what you think.

CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

No trouble for the delay, it's a forum and I'm not really "on time" either
In addition It's holiday for most of us I believe

First, thanks for your clear explanations.
I've seen the video of Major Stephen Coughlins, and plan in buying his books (this will be only the third books recommended on this forum I will began reading )

Effectively "dumb" or "idiots" are not the good choice of word. I can't avoid to think of people who refuses to think by themselves but rather want to believe, without any second thoughts or standing back, in what someone said in a long long time, as not the most interesting peoples.
It's a supposition of mine, and not a useful one to help understand their mindset or to see how to fight them.

Concerning the legal framework, we can effectively said they don't feel any constraint of our society, but live only by their standards, which they believe are above ours (and their standard doesn't take into account other's lives).
I see now that effectively the muslim (in general) are much more than just a religious which is led astray, but also political system who had the objective to assure muslim hegemony, and that even moderate muslim can believe (the example of Major Stephen Coughlins are pretty self explanatory)

But in the Major Stephen Coughlins presentation, I couldn't avoid to think : where are the gains ? for who ?
Does the elite of extremism muslim government truly believe of that, or do they used it as a mean to control the mass ?

In addition, why I wanted to separate the war of terror on "our" territory and on "their", is on the fact that can't see any strategic meaning on theirs operations.
They try to bring chaos and fear. But does it help them in converting non muslim ? Does it help them in destitute our governments so they could put theirs in place?

I'm not sure that we can "convert back" an extremist. But how can we prevent to become an extremist in the first place ?
Why non-muslim, in a well educated country and who have following a minimum scholarship can become, in the space of 2 or 3 years, a man ready to kill his former friends ?
How can we show that human rights are in accordance with their "Allah is big/right/good/merciful/whatever" ?

And in writing this, I'm asking myself (I'm just writing out loud, so don't send me rock for what I wrote please ), is the muslim "all in one" isn't a dictatorial sect and must be treated as one, and not just a religion with political fundamentalist?
To explain a little more : the "standard goal" of the muslim religion is the supremacy other all human beings, and "moderated muslim" are just "not good muslim", or is it the other way around ?

Depending the way, the system itself must be fought , and in the other way, corrupting people must be fought, and the system could be adapted to work in a democracy.

It's my personal belief (or hope ? ) that once we will have no more "religious government" on earth, we will have much less religious fundamentalism

Concerning the legal framework, we can effectively said they don't feel any constraint of our society, but live only by their standards, which they believe are above ours (and their standard doesn't take into account other's lives). I see now that effectively the muslim (in general) are much more than just a religious which is led astray, but also political system who had the objective to assure muslim hegemony, and that even moderate muslim can believe (the example of Major Stephen Coughlins are pretty self explanatory)

But in the Major Stephen Coughlins presentation, I couldn't avoid to think : where are the gains ? for who ?
Does the elite of extremism muslim government truly believe of that, or do they used it as a mean to control the mass ?

In addition, why I wanted to separate the war of terror on "our" territory and on "their", is on the fact that can't see any strategic meaning on theirs operations.
They try to bring chaos and fear. But does it help them in converting non muslim ? Does it help them in destitute our governments so they could put theirs in place?

I'm not sure that we can "convert back" an extremist. But how can we prevent to become an extremist in the first place ?
Why non-muslim, in a well educated country and who have following a minimum scholarship can become, in the space of 2 or 3 years, a man ready to kill his former friends ?
How can we show that human rights are in accordance with their "Allah is big/right/good/merciful/whatever" ?

And in writing this, I'm asking myself (I'm just writing out loud, so don't send me rock for what I wrote please ), is the muslim "all in one" isn't a dictatorial sect and must be treated as one, and not just a religion with political fundamentalist?
To explain a little more : the "standard goal" of the muslim religion is the supremacy other all human beings, and "moderated muslim" are just "not good muslim", or is it the other way around ?

Depending the way, the system itself must be fought , and in the other way, corrupting people must be fought, and the system could be adapted to work in a democracy.

It's my personal belief (or hope ? ) that once we will have no more "religious government" on earth, we will have much less religious fundamentalism

I hope you enjoy the book...

Get this.

They see Allah's legal framework as above man-made legal framework. In other words they literally give no shits about our laws. They're not divine. But yes they probably just use it to control the mass, some other really devout nutbags really believe it.

Does it help in converting? In some way not at face-value. That's what street Dawah groups are for. In other ways, probably. There are some sick people out there that probably convert just to get caught up in the drama. Does it help them destitute our Governments? Not through policy, no. However, socially, to a degree. I mean you just have to look at PEW polls nowadays to see that.

How do you prevent radicalization? There is the problem.

Cleave from the Mainstream.
Counter Energizing the Base.
Islamic Reformation.
Banning, censorship and other controversial issues.

There are the potential solutions I can think of from likely to unlikely.
Can we prevent it completely? Probably not. It's an ideology. It's here to stay. Even if we left other countries for good, forever. It would still exist because it is expansionist, it is at continual effort to degrade our non-Islamic society. Even non-violently... The Muslim Brotherhood deem this "Civilization Jihad."

Human rights are not seen in the way we see them under Allah's law. Being a non-Muslim, you could say, is seen as a sin. Being a Muslim is about submitting to Allah. If you do not submit to the one who created you, what's the point? That's the Islamist ideology.

Is it JUST a religion?

No.

Does it look to establish a central, often unalterable, law system that will ultimately persecute others? Yes.
Does it look to centralize a Government or State around one source such as this religious law? Yes.
Does it accept open criticism and debate within the State? No, often not.
Is this ultimately incompatible with democracy and the freedoms it holds? YES.

Well, there goes your rights to Freedom of Expression. In fact, there goes half your “Western freedoms” and there in leads to a totalitarian system based around religion and religious law.

Sorry to say.

But this is just an observation I have made.

It's totalitarian in a "literal" sense.

And a note on literalism.

To be a Muslim you must realize that:
(a) Nothing is worshipped except Allah.
(b) Muhammad, the Prophet, is the Messenger of Allah.
(c) The Qu'ran is the perfect word of God.

If so, being against that is not being a Muslim. These are some of the basic Pillar of Islam. Right?

So therefore you have to be a literalist to be a Muslim. There is no accommodationist or enlightenment age like Christianity.

And I agree. Separating religion from state is a must. Secularism is a must. Democracy is great. Capitalism is working okay for us so far.
I hope you understood what I have said. In no way am I against Islam, I have just studied it and this is what I have observed. Thank you.

CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

After seeing all the videos of Major Stephen Coughlins and verifying the qu'oran verse he was citing, I must say that I'm little depressed.
(I'm afraid it will be worse once I read the book : )

By the fact that no muslims (except some rare exceptions) in my country are saying that "Yes the qu'oran say this and that, but we will not following theses and stay on the democratic laws.". Perhaps it's implicit, but it goes better when saying.
There are even the nerve to say, officially, after the multiples France attack, that the qu'oran is a book of love and indulgence.

I know (or hope?) that most of the muslims in my country adhere to the republic law, but I must say that the psyops they were pulling with each attack did exist.
A sort of "We are the good guy, they were bad and we don't agree with theses acts. So help us get more power so we could show them the right way to follow, and show you we're good", with a mix of veiled threat "You must modify your habits to help us integrate/be comfortable/ [for example canteen's menu , where there are no accommodation for other thinking current like vegetarian or organic]

By what I'm also depressed, is the fact that the AQ magazine did describe the second Paris attack (or at least point of interest). In addition It shows that the COP21 wasn't a choice target, and that all the gesticulation around it wasn't really justified.

So after of speaking so much of myself, I will come back to the main subject (Yes, I'm know, I'm a little verbose).

Do you think that the following measure could help fighting against Jihad and beginning to act instead of just waiting patiently others attacks ?

On one hand, I totally agree with you with the fact they will not be destroyed easily , only hiding better, waiting to come back when they think the time is right.

On the other hand, we aren't forced to play in their palm. We could also do a civilization strongholdt", and putting in place to avoid/mitigate 5th column works.
And I also think that we must try to do something of our own before waiting patiently any change coming from the muslims. If they do change, great, really great. But "Expect the best, prepare for the worse".

I think the example of the 5th column is a good one, since it indicate stay-behind network, and Actuality shows us that actual terrorism weren't "imported for this attack" but were on our soil from a long time. In addition these network aren't doing only violent action but any destabilizing action.

Since I have no power, I could propose only words :'(
- Stop dropping our rights to anything or anyone . I believe that fundamental values are here to show us the path when the time are difficult, not when there are no troubles. And I'm in distress to see so many person accept violation of their basics freedom for falses promises , in the pretext that it's "a difficult time so we can/must accept this".
This action isn't against muslim, but for all western citizen, and the basics freedoms I refer to are the UDHR (something that my country, even before GWOT, had always a little trouble with it, even if we invent them!)

Do you think that our government could do the exact same stunt that OIC did, and forcibly saying that when any UN nation use the term of "human rights" or anything making think of it, it could only refer to the UDHR ? Not amendable, not supersede-able

This could be part of a conjoint political standing of western countries (if they want to do something, but i'm not so sure after seeing how they manage the GWOT).

One other possible action is also trying to "unconceal" and systematically, on a state level for example, refusing to accept any lies concerning what's in the qu'oran and what is not. (I speak of qu'oran, but it must be applied to any and all extremist where books/discourse promote the killing/slaving/... of other on any criteria!).
In a democratic government, we can't accept lie on declaration of intention.
- How can we condemn to jail a teenager who've done a bad joke on first Paris attack, on more than suspicious legal argument (he parodied an old cover of "charlie hebdo" which was published for a killing in egypt) , and in the same time considering mens and womens saying that "they considering the qu'oran is a sacred text (so they are no discussion on what it saying, and it's to be seen above human law as you said), and they will follow the precept of this books" must be accepted and "accommodated" (their term, not mine) in our society, without further discussion.
There must be at least some volontary declaration/... on what they could not follow! (But I know I'm just sugar coating my hope, since if they think of the qu'oran this way, they will use the "right to lie to non muslim".)

Do you have any idea how many muslims are in France, and how few act violently? its 0,00000? percent at most, that one in a million. I think its even less.

The chances of you getting victimised in France by terrorist attact is lower then you flying anywhere as a tourist and have a plane crash. then after you get to your destination in a red flagged country the chances of being victimised by terrorists is lower. flying anywhere is more dangerous then terrorist acts in western europe. its about 2 people/year. thats more chance then being a succesfull terrorist, but lower then the actual number of people convicted for terrorism.

besides that flying or taking a train anywhere is safer then going with your own car, and those are hundreds of times more likely to kill you.

Leave normal muslims alone. Muslims are the terrorists of today, but before there were a lot of other factions in europe that where far more violent.

So leave muslims alone, they are just as peacefull as any other religion, and even more then atheists.

I don't think it's a razors edge. I think that some religious orders are more likely to lead to violence based off what they teach or how easy violence can be dehistorized, politicized or used today. Aum Shinrikyo for example formed due to one man who made a lot of claims. This founding ideology is one that started with claims of being a Prophet and guiding the world to peace to a destructive form of religion (even Japan's 2009 White Paper classifies it as a "dangerous religion") calling for Armageddon and destruction of the Earth (i.e. political violence, terrorism).

I think the -ism is to differentiate violence from non-violence or theocratic from moderate and democratic. Terminology around everything to do with terrorism sucks. Extremism, terrorism, Islamism, Jihadism, Salafism, Wahhabism. It's not a very good way of understanding the problems, in my opinion.

But anyway, that depends on what you believe to be true and what motivates behaviour. There is a lot of contradictory theories out there on terrorism.

Religiously, sometimes scriptural understanding motivates behaviour (e.g. non-violently, the way you pray - different Hadith say different things like touching your left elbow with your right hand).
Sometimes religion is just the organization principle for a group (e.g. "us" vs the "other," Catholics vs Protestants during the Troubles).
Sometimes religion is the scapegoat hiding behind more insidious beliefs and plans (e.g. Laskhar-i-Taiba's anti-Sufi propaganda or political ambitions for a Sharia-ran state).
Depends on what group you are talking about. What time period. And what you believe to be motivating them.

Where does fanaticism cross to fundamentalism? Depends on your definitions and criteria. Some people see Islam as inherently fanatic because it see's itself as the last, and truest, religion, in the face of all others. Some see fundamentalism as a problem with the fundamentals of the said religion. Some see terrorism as an extension of that religious order. So it depends on how you perceive it. Is your worldview true or accurate? How do you tell if it is?

Buddhists in Myanmar attack Muslims based on many things. There are religious interpretations that allow for violence in both Christianity and Buddhism.

The former with the anti-abortionist movements, as an example. The latter with the 969 movement, as an example.

The former whereby religious scripture, more often the Old Testament, is used to justify slaying those who slay man - abortion doctors and staff. The latter whereby Ashin Wirathu - the "Buddhist BIn Laden" - coerces people by suggesting things such as: "Snakes are poisonous where-ever they are... you cannot underestimate a snake because there is only one... it is dangerous where-ever it is and Muslims are just like that." Further calling for Buddhists to abandon religious norms and pacifism in the face of persecution, rape and murder. Those two examples alone show two different trends: following religion using their own interpretation and pulling away from religion in times of crisis (Neo-Buddhism?).

Even the Sohei used to say things like: “"The mercy of Buddha should be recompensed by pounding flesh to pieces."

Even Paganism and neo-Paganism is being used by White Supremacists to motivate violence and anti-multiculturalism, anti-democracy, etc.

The point is not that other people do it, but how the Islamic terrorists are doing it in particular because right now they're the biggest religious terrorist problem, in my opinion.

CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

In western europe we faced a lot of lone-wolves attacks claimed to be from Jihhadi or Salafistic origin. Obviously claimed by IS or someone pretending to be. In background checks the offenders often have little to do with the islam or anything related.

Before Islamic terrorism there was about the same number of terrorist attacks in western europe, but under totally different banners. To state islamic related terrorism is the biggest problem right now is quite short-sighted. No offence meant obviously.

You'd have to back up those claims. Most databases I've looked into suggest the opposite. Worldwide Incidents Tracking System suggests Islamist terrorism is number one. But that's worldwide. Global Terrorism Database, TRAC, Political Tracking Scale, all the same--worldwide. The only studies that say (European) terrorism was bigger usually means deadlier - as in IRA bombings - during the 70s, 80s and 90s tended to kill more people per attack. Not only that but ISIS have spawned a new breed of terrorist. They're not only attracting international Muslims - Chinese, Chechen, British, Canadian, etc. But they're attracting a mixture of people whether it's someone with a PhD in Hadith Sciences or a scumbag criminal. And they got into Statehood for a large amount of time - actually running their "Sharia Utopia" that they wanted. I think it's a big underestimation to say Islamic terrorism isn't the biggest terrorism problem right now. It is especially in Australia. Their ideology will live on. And AQ are already pushing off the defeated ISIS narrative and calling for their more "noble" versions of a Sharia State so the entire radical Islam threat isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

What do you think is the biggest terrorism problem?

In relation to determining what is and isn't Islamic, it comes down to the doctrine and subscribing to that doctrine. How does a background check tell you that?

Put it this way... some of the companions of Muhammad became Muslims and then shortly died after during the Battle of Badr - they were "hardly Muslim" -- some hardly prayed, didn't fast, etc -- but still went to the highest tier of Heaven as martyrs. Islam is a very complex set of doctrines. One that says you can even be forgiven for dying in the Cause of Allah against His enemies, one that says that even those who have been bad Muslims are redeemable. If you want historical examples, Khalid is your main man. He did many 'unIslamic' practices that were ultimately forgiven, and he himself is celebrated. Technically Muhammad did too, like ordering fighting in Mecca and during the month of Ramadan. Whether really religious like Abdullah Azzam or really not religious, you can still be an Islamic terrorist -- the doctrine (especially Hadith) allows such interpretations. I can think of countless examples, even ones of convicted terrorists that lived in my hometown in the UK.

There are numerous pathways to Islamic extremism. You don't have to be a perfect observant Muslim. Some of those who join terrorist groups are, some aren't. Some are educated, some aren't. Some had good jobs, some didn't. It's mixed-bag. Let's face it, Islamic terrorists make the Westboro Baptist Church look like nothing.

CQB-TEAM Education and Motivation.

"Pragmatism over theory."
"Anyone with a weapon is just as deadly as the next person."
"Unopposed CQB is always a success, if you wanted you could moonwalk into the room holding a Pepsi."

Obviously i think the highest terrorist threat are misguided people fed with idiotic propaganda.

Also obvious is that i can't disclaim my information om terrorists who where active in europe scince 2014. Those are europol datasheets, and i can't share those with anyone not involved in euro-ct, but i can tell you most "terrorists" are generaly very new to islam, if at all.

They are mostly of european origin and embedded in our culture. Media tell a different story, but we rescearch any people we turn into corpses, and they are mostly new muslims, or not even socially active in the muslim community.

Therefore the greatest terrorist threat is people with mental disorders followed by the islamic threath.

- Most who engage in terrorism in europe are only very recently been interested in the muslim religion if at all, before commiting their acts.
- Most terrorists who act in name of ISIS or any other islamic group have been proven not to have been instructed/funded/aided by ISIS or other know terrorist groups.
- Most muslim terrorists have been born on european soil and are second or third generation muslims in europe.

Those are hard facts.

Also its a mistake to think most Muslims support ISIS. In fact most of them don't. The Islamic kalifate founded by ISIS is getting smaller and less influential in the middle eastern region. There are larger problems going on in the world right now, but they don't get equal attention from the media.

The chance of a person dying in the free world by terrorism in general is incredibly small compared to random violence, accidents, disease and old age. So ISIS is a problem, but its managable and contained to a small part of the middle east. Radicalised(psychotic or just stupid) muslims are rarely found to be in contact with or funded by Middle eastern muslim organisations.

Radical muslim groups often only exist in cyberspace. The media differentiates between terrorism and (organised)crime, but the majority of victims are caused by the latter.

99% of Muslims are peacefull i guess, but a large study in the netherlands and germany has some bad statistics.

55% of Muslims would prefer koran's laws (not sharia) over our laws. 15% of Cristians see it that way.
30% of Muslims see the western culture as a threat.
20% of Muslims say they would take up arms to defend their beliefs.

If only 1% of them will actually fight there wouldn't be a problem, but if 20% supports them they have a network to fall back on.

Also they fight eachother. Now ISIS has virtually no more territory they will become a terrorist network like there are many others, but now the Syrians, Iraki and Turks seem to turn upon the Kurdish muslims because they don't need them anymore.